Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[LittleSoldier]

As a late comer to this thread, first let me thank LittleSoldier, Br. David (ByzCath) and others for your well-informed and faithfully Catholic posts.

You are quite welcome - my pleasure.

There’s one thing that weighs heavily on my mind, and it’s the future of Catholic institutions, including hospitals and universities. I’ve heard an interview with an illustrious Catholic personality (I think he was the president of the Cardinal Newman Society) who said that the Catholic Church was forced to remove the “Catholic” designation from some 4 or 5 universities during the last decade. And here, this hospital really forced the hand of Bishop Olmstead, because they not only performed this abortion, they also provided contraception, IUDs, and surgeries to render people sterile. But my question is this: is there a way to fight back, keep our Catholic universities and hospitals Catholic, and fire those employees that persistently violate the Catholic mission of said institutions?

Yesterday I read that the ACLU is going to sue to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That was expected but it’s going to make things a lot harder. All I can see happening is that if the ACLU wins, all Catholic hospitals in the U.S. will close. I don’t know what the answer is. Our local hospital is Catholic but not one person on the board of directors is Catholic. It’s like the word “Catholic” means nothing when it comes to hospitals. I’m sure the Vatican and the USCCB is aware of these problems and I hope they can regain control somehow. It all comes down to the “right” to have an abortion for convenience. I guess maybe all we can do is pray, which is very powerful.

We’re going down that slippery slope. What’s next? The ACLU suing to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia services?

I’ve heard it explained that all Catholic universities in the USA were transferred from under the Bishops’ control to secular control around 1967. This was done simply to preserve the tax-exempt status of these universities. Now, they are being led by boards of trustees that include Catholic priests and nuns, but many of these priests and nuns are rebellious, disobedient to the Bishops, and that’s how we ended up with Notre Dame giving honorary doctorate to the leader of the Culture of Death (Barack Obama), Xavier U. of New Orleans doing the same with Donna Brazile and again with Barack Obama, and so on. In my opinion, these “Catholic” universities failed their Catholic mission in a spectacular way. Time to conclude that the experiment of 1967 was also a failure, because it allowed Catholic universities to go off the track of faithful Catholicism in return for a tax-exempt status. Time to transfer our “Catholic” universities back under the direct control of our Bishops, even if they loose their tax-exempt status. And I wonder whether something similar is going on with our Catholic hospitals, i.e. why aren’t they under the direct control of our Bishops (or religious orders, where applicable)? There must be a clear chain of command, damn the tax-exempt status. The local Bishop or superior of the religious order that operates the hospital should be given the authority to ENFORCE Catholic standards of bioethics in the Catholic hospitals, and the authority to FIRE those who persist in a state of rebellion. And if a Bishop or religious superior falls into rebellion, let the Pope remove him/her. That’s what I call a clear chain of command for a Catholic institution.

I agree. I wasn’t aware of the secular control of Catholic Universities. I know it would cause financial hardship but I think that if the hospitals need to give up their tax-exempt status in order to follow Church teaching then that’s what they should do. That might be the easiest solution and might keep the ACLU off our backs. It would also mean that the hospitals wouldn’t have to close their doors.

Let’s find a way to put our Catholic institutions back under the real authority of the Catholic Church. I think it would be worth even if we loose the tax-exempt status. Let the Bishops have the authority to keep our Catholic institutions Catholic.

Edit: I might be wrong about “keeping the tax-exempt status”, it might have been instead some trick to keep the federal dollars flowing, on the basis that the federal government threatened to cut off subsidies to Church-owned institutions. But at any rate, it was about the money, our Catholic universities have been taken out from the direct authority of the Church in the 1960s due to financial reasons, and look how some of them kept the money but lost their Catholic souls. I think it’s just not worth it, to sacrifice faithful catholicity for the sake of money.

Again, I agree. What a crazy world we live in, where the right to kill one’s own children appears to be more important than the rest of the services Catholic hospitals provide. If it weren’t for Catholic hospitals an awful lot of people would not have access to much-needed health care. I wouldn’t. I live in a small town and the Catholic hospital is the only one. Even if I got hurt really bad I would be airlifted to another Catholic hospital.

It’s a bad situation and I think it will get worse.

 

[LittleSoldier]

When it comes to life or death matters, I would personally trust in the doctors presiding over me, not a bishop trying to be a doctor.

I am grateful that the St. Joseph’s Hospital in my area is not subjected to such behavior.

Addendum to my last reply to this post:

Do you not understand that this is a Catholic hospital? As it is a Catholic hospital it should be under the direct control of the Catholic Church.

As for the bishop “trying to be a doctor,” you don’t seem to understand that the bishop has the power to remove the Catholic affiliation from a hospital that no longer follows Catholic Church teaching.

Your concern about the bishop “trying to be a doctor” makes as much sense as going to Mass today and having a secular physician behind the altar in lieu of a priest. The bishop is not trying to practice medicine. And as far as I know, no secular physician is trying to perform Mass.

As for “life or death matters” I would like to remind you that there is a life beyond this earthly one and that is the life that concerns the Church the most. Do you think that a priest who performs the Sacrament of the Sick for you as you lie dying in a hospital bed is “trying to be a doctor”? If so, I hope you manage to let him know you don’t appreciate his meddling in hospital affairs. I don’t mean for this to be uncharitable, especially not on Christmas day. But your simplistic reasoning is illogical.

 

[TEPO]

I love bishop Thomas Olmstead, his sermons are some of the best sermons I’ve ever heard… I trust his decision wholeheartedly.

 

[kimmielittle]

are you planning on having more children? if not direct harm to the child is permitted at all why would you or anyone else with lfie threatening problems have children? This isn’t my line of reasoning but it does present a problem with your argument.

Your line of reasoning is flawed in a number of ways, IMO

1 It was a Catholic Hospital. It was started by the Sisters of Mercy - They knew Catholic Teachings -They agree to Catholic Teachings - Catholic Teaching, on this, has not changed in the 60 or so years that this Hospital has been there.

2 Could the patient have been transferred? From ALL the accounts I’ve read over the months - No place, was this called a “life or death emergency”…hindering transportation to another local hospital I believe there is one within ten miles ].

3 The Ethics Committee Member is a Catholic Sister Sister of Mercy ] - Why didn’t SHE remove herself from the Ethics Committee on this case? This particular Sister has hmmmmm…a long history…actually, from what I can tell -IMO so does the whole congregation of Sisters of Mercy ].

 

[kimmielittle]

It is now officially CHRISTMAS on the west coast of the U.S.

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

BLESSED CHRIST’s MASS !!!

 

[TEPO]

2 Could the patient could have been transferred? From ALL the accounts I’ve read over the months - No place, was this called a “life or death emergency”…hindering transportation to another local hospital I believe there is one within ten miles ].

thank you. This hospital showed no regard to the Bishop at all… they did’nt need to perform this procedure there, they just did’nt care to work with the Bishop at all…

they are absolutely not a catholic facility, by any means.

 

[kimmielittle]

thank you. This hospital showed no regard to the Bishop at all… they did’nt need to perform this procedure there, they just did’nt care to work with the Bishop at all…

they are absolutely not a catholic facility, by any means.

You are very welcome.

Merry Christ’s Mass

 

[kimmielittle]

When it comes to life or death matters, I would personally trust in the doctors presiding over me, not a bishop trying to be a doctor.

Would you trust this Sister for your Spiritual needs?

This “Sister” used her position as a member of the Ethics committee, to dictate HER views of Catholic Moral teaching - What about the poor Mother / Family that now finds out her council was flawed AND this “Sister” knew it was flawed when she gave this council? What about Nurses / Doctors who depended upon this “Sisters” call of Catholic Ethics - who went ahead and participated, who might not had have, had they known different?

In this case, The Bishop wasn’t even there - He found out about it after being transferred to the area, I believe.

I would point out, this isn’t the only reason for this hospital to lose it’s Catholic Status. Just the issuing of contraceptives and sterilizations…is more than enough.

I am grateful that the St. Joseph’s Hospital in my area is not subjected to such behavior.

I have no idea what you mean here. If it is a Catholic Hospital - it’s subject to Catholic Moral / Ethical review.

 

[LittleSoldier]

thank you. This hospital showed no regard to the Bishop at all… they did’nt need to perform this procedure there, they just did’nt care to work with the Bishop at all…

they are absolutely not a catholic facility, by any means.

One aspect of this bothers me a lot and if anyone else has brought it up already, I apologize.

I’ve read somewhere in all the reports and articles and things that the hospital issued a statement which said something like “the baby was in the process of dying” as though that gave them sufficient reason to go ahead and kill it (does anyone know the gender of the baby?). As far as I know, and actually I am positive about this, euthanasia is not accepted by the Church, or by any real pro-lifer.

I’m not sure but I think this is part of the reason this was a direct abortion. The decision was made to kill the baby - not to remove the placenta with the purpose of saving the mother’s life, but to intentionally kill the baby. That is not acceptable. Even if that decision was made in good faith, even if it was made in an effort to save the mother’s life, it is still wrong. The Sister on the Ethics Committee should have been aware of this.

In an ectopic pregnancy the tube containing the embryo can be removed if it is removed in order to save the mother’s life. If it is removed in order to kill the embryo that is a direct abortion and is not acceptable. It all has to do with intent.

My friend gave me a good analogy. Say you’re asleep and you hear a noise. You grab the revolver from the bedside table and sneak out to take a look. You see a burglar. He has a knife and he sees you and he is coming towards you. You shoot but you miss because the burglar moves. Unfortunately behind the burglar (and where you could not see her) is your young daughter who had gotten up to investigate the noises. You have shot your daughter and she is dead.

Change it just a bit. You wake up, grab the gun, yada yada yada and you see the burglar. He has a knife but he drops it when he sees your gun. He then moves and you see your daughter and shoot her. You have shot your daughter and she is dead.

The exact same outcome is present in both situations: your daughter is dead because you shot her.

The intent is what is different. In the hospital case the intent was to kill the baby. They can say he/she was in the process of dying until the cows come home and it makes no difference. Their intent was to kill the baby. And that is not acceptable in a Catholic hospital.

 

[kimmielittle]

One aspect of this bothers me a lot and if anyone else has brought it up already, I apologize.

I’ve read somewhere in all the reports and articles and things that the hospital issued a statement which said something like “the baby was in the process of dying” as though that gave them sufficient reason to go ahead and kill it (does anyone know the gender of the baby?).

Hiyas
I would ask whoever makes this claim for a source for making it. None of the reports, that I’ve seen issued by the hospital, have indicated that the life of the baby was in danger.

The Mothers illness is reported as:

"It involved a serious illness, pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse,** possibly** even fatal, by pregnancy. "

Bolding mine -

According to some, pulmonary hypertension, is very rare.

One of the worlds foremost treatment centers for pulmonary hypertension, is the Mayo Clinics. mayoclinic.org/pulmonary-hypertension/?mc_id=comlinkpilot&placement=bottom . Which has a center just blocks away from Saint Josephs.

The diagnosis of Pulmonary Hypertension requires a number of time consuming tests, as it can be easy to misdiagnosis with other illnesses, such as asthma. Indicating time was available ].

Treatment of pulmonary hypertension Treatment of the disease ] - would be the same as offered males with pulmonary hypertension. There is no cure ].

With TWO lives at stake, when abortion came to the attention of St. Josephs Staff and a world renowned treatment center blocks away - would it not be ETHICAL to transfer BOTH Patients to Mayo Clinics? IMO, some here fail to realize the attending Doctors / Hospital are charged with BOTH lives.

 

[kimmielittle]

The intent is what is different. In the hospital case the intent was to kill the baby. They can say he/she was in the process of dying until the cows come home and it makes no difference. ** Their intent was to kill the baby**. And that is not acceptable in a Catholic hospital.

Bolding mine

 

[kimmielittle]

Had the patient been a somewhat obese male - would they have done a tummy tuck?

If not - why not? Surely his somewhat obesity would contribute to possible death?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Voris weighs in.

Bravo, Bishop

When a bishop does a great thing, he needs to be recognized and supported.
rdefrancesco@diocesephoenix.org

:clapping: :yup:

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve noticed that the people who object so strongly do so on the basis of consequentialism. They want to do what results in the most good (a noble intention). But where they go wrong is that they define right and wrong completely in terms of the consequences. No longer are the actions judged based on their intrinisic nature, but only based on the outcomes of the actions.

And if I recall correctly this same line of reasoning was used by the Sanhedrin to plot the murder of Jesus.

 

[nhylan]

I don’t buy the intent argument. You are inferring that their intent was to kill the baby. What determines that that was their intent vs. The intent to save the mother? Further I ask this question:

You are driving in the desert under the hot sun. You come across 2 babies who are dying. You can only save one, by saving one you are essentially dooming the other. Would you truly let them both die due to your inaction? Do you really think that God would condemn you because you tried to do the most good? Because you saved one life rather than not choosing to do nothing? I think you misunderestimate God’s grace and mercy. Plus, if we take them at their word that their INTENT was to save the mother, don’t you think that’s the basis God will judge them rather than how others interpret their action? I’m pretty sure that’s the idea behind invincible ignorance isn’t it?

 

[bookgirl32]

I don’t buy the intent argument. You are inferring that their intent was to kill the baby. What determines that that was their intent vs. The intent to save the mother? Further I ask this question:

You are driving in the desert under the hot sun. You come across 2 babies who are dying. You can only save one, by saving one you are essentially dooming the other. Would you truly let them both die due to your inaction? Do you really think that God would condemn you because you tried to do the most good? Because you saved one life rather than not choosing to do nothing? I think you misunderestimate God’s grace and mercy. Plus, if we take them at their word that their INTENT was to save the mother, don’t you think that’s the basis God will judge them rather than how others interpret their action? I’m pretty sure that’s the idea behind invincible ignorance isn’t it?

The only way this argument will work as a parallel to the situation in Arizona is if you say that you must pick one to kill, with your own hands (as in pull it apart into pieces while still alive, or feed it poison, or burn it), in order for the other one to continue living. When they say “intent” they are not insinuating that they weren’t trying to save the mother, but that the means in which they were doing this involved directly killing another human being. It’s the whole argument of the end not justifying the means. They didn’t actively DO anything to save the mother, they actively, directly, killed the baby, which had a secondary result of allowing the mother’s life to continue (which is something they were not guaranteed of happening, it was just something they hoped would result from the actual action they were taking).

 

[gus]

I’m an Arizona resident.
Based on reporting out hear The hospital seems to be happy its no linger Catholic.
There going to keep their name
and priests will still be allowed to administer sacraments.
What if any actions can the Bishop take that make this action meaningfull?
How does a hospital benifit from being Catholic.
How did we allow groups like CHW to steal our hospitals

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t buy the intent argument. You are inferring that their intent was to kill the baby. What determines that that was their intent vs. The intent to save the mother? Further I ask this question:

You are driving in the desert under the hot sun. You come across 2 babies who are dying. You can only save one, by saving one you are essentially dooming the other. Would you truly let them both die due to your inaction? Do you really think that God would condemn you because you tried to do the most good? Because you saved one life rather than not choosing to do nothing? I think you misunderestimate God’s grace and mercy. Plus, if we take them at their word that their INTENT was to save the mother, don’t you think that’s the basis God will judge them rather than how others interpret their action? I’m pretty sure that’s the idea behind invincible ignorance isn’t it?

It would be very nice and very appreciated if you could somehow let us know to which post you are responding.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t buy the intent argument. You are inferring that their intent was to kill the baby. What determines that that was their intent vs. The intent to save the mother? Further I ask this question:

You are driving in the desert under the hot sun. You come across 2 babies who are dying. You can only save one, by saving one you are essentially dooming the other. Would you truly let them both die due to your inaction? Do you really think that God would condemn you because you tried to do the most good? Because you saved one life rather than not choosing to do nothing? I think you misunderestimate God’s grace and mercy. Plus, if we take them at their word that their INTENT was to save the mother, don’t you think that’s the basis God will judge them rather than how others interpret their action? I’m pretty sure that’s the idea behind invincible ignorance isn’t it?

There are several possible outcomes and actions that can be taken using your analogy. If you think that picking up one of the babies and saving her is moral, you are correct. But if you take the other baby and kill her intentionally, that is not moral.

The baby in this hospital case was intentionally killed. I’m sure their intent was to save the mother. And I have no doubts about their caring for human life. That doesn’t matter. If you work in a CATHOLIC hospital you don’t go around INTENTIONALLY KILLING BABIES.

That is were INTENT comes in. I think you misunderstand the teachings of God’s Church - the Body of Christ. God will judge them. I won’t judge them as that is not my place, nor is it yours. But I will judge their actions. They KILLED an innocent human being, directly and intentionally.

That is not allowed in a CATHOLIC hospital and it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere. To participate in this action is to spit in God’s face.

 

[Rence]

I know you are only following the rules regarding thread title but this isn’t an accurate description of what happened. The hospital didn’t lose its Catholic status over a single incident. Even after the abortion fiasco, the Bishop gave them every oportunity to provide assurances that they would ensure that, in the future, they would serve the community in a manner faithful to Church teaching. Unfortunately, they were not willing to do that. The Bishop’s full statement is here:

ncregister.com/blog/bishop-strips-abortion-hospital-of-catholic-status

Well, if they weren’t willing to comply with the rules of the Church then they should lose their “Catholic” status…and it’s probably better that way so they don’t have to go through all that again and they can concentrate on treating their emergency patients without worrying about being tossed around in the news again. Furthermore, patients who go there will know what kind of treatment to expect when they are in emergent danger. Being given choices about where to go for medical treatment is a wonderful thing. It’s even more wonderful when you know what to expect and from where.